Evaluating Environmental Impacts

Transcription

1 Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Evaluating Environmental Impacts Professor Ian A. Waitz Massachusetts Institute of Technology March 19, 2008

2 Presenting the work of the FAA Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management (APMT) development team including many researchers and students Vital Link Policy Analysis HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH BB&C This work was funded by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Project Manager: Maryalice Locke The work we present here is preliminary. We expect the results will change as we continue to develop and improve our methods. 2

3 The debate is intense and intensifying Flying the worst thing to do The dirtiest industry in the world. B. Sewill, Fly Now, Grieve Later, 2005 unrelenting carbon-efficient improvement is business as usual for commercial airlines We are the greenest form of mass transportation. J. C. May, ATA President and CEO, Congressional Testimony, 2007 Bishop of London says vacation flying is a sin EU seeking unilateral inclusion of aviation in emissions trading system California and other states petition EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aviation (December 2007) Boeing and Virgin Atlantic B747 demo on alternative fuels (February 2008) 3

4 What matters? To whom does it matter? Why does it matter? How do we know? Noise? Surface air quality? Climate change? Energy use? Movement of goods and people? Republished with permission of Globe Newspaper Co. Inc. 4

5 Choices exist; how should we choose? Every airplane design represents a different balance of noise, performance, emissions Every operational procedure represents a different balance of noise, performance, emissions Capital costs are high (e.g. $10B for a new airplane program) Time-scales are long (20-30 years) Idle EICO (g/kg-fuel) CO emissions ICAO Engine Exhaust Emission Database Issue Take-off EINOx (g/kg-fuel) NOx emissions 5

6 Even simple changes may lead to complex trade-offs For example One aspect of airplane operations changed Throttle setting reduced during take-off Emissions and noise change CO2 increases NOx decreases SOx increases PM decreases Noise decreases Affects aviation economics 6

7 How are choices made today? ICAO CAEP/6 engine NOx stringency Did not include estimate of averted health impacts Did not include estimate of impacts of additional fuel/co2 Did not include impacts of costs on consumer demand for aviation $5-$15 billion decision $/tonne NOx reduced Cost-effectiveness estimates Most cost-effective scenario $30,000/tonne-NOx 10% stringency 2008 implementation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Certification Stringency Level 2012 Impl Impl. Source: ICAO FESG CAEP/6-IP/13; estimates assume high level of manufacturers NRC and lost fleet value, discount rate 3% 7

8 How will the FAA make decisions in the future? inputs Policy scenarios Certification stringency Market-based measures Land-use controls Sound insulation Market scenarios Demand Fuel prices Fleet Environmental scenarios CO 2 growth Technology and operational advances CNS/ATM, NGATS Long term technology forecasts New Tool Suite (FAA+NASA+ Transport Canada) Global, Regional, Airport-local Cost-effectiveness $/kg NOx reduced $/# people removed from 65dB DNL $/kg PM reduced $/kg CO 2 reduced Benefit-cost Health and welfare impacts Change in societal welfare ($) Distributional analyses Who benefits, who pays Consumers Airports Airlines Manufacturers People impacted by noise and pollution Special groups Geographical regions Focus of presentation outputs 8

9 Climate impacts of aviation are complex and occur over varying time-scales (minutes to centuries) Climate impacts go beyond the long term effects of CO2 Not unique to aviation, true for other sources, but the specific combination of effects is unique to aviation NOx emissions lead to increased ozone where aircraft fly, a warming effect regionally NOx emissions lead to methane removal, a cooling effect globally Contrails and contrail-induced cirrus produce warming effect regionally (where aircraft fly) Topic of highest scientific uncertainty for aviation climate impacts Other effects (soot, sulfates, water emissions) less significant Except water emissions in stratosphere which can have a strong warming influence 9

10 30-year aviation scenario: D surface temperature A relevant time period for policy and technology, impacts of U.S. ops only Total impacts How important is CO 2? NO x? Contrails? CO 2 impacts shaded in gray x NO x -O 3 Cirrus Sulfate Soot H 2 O Contrails NO x -CH 4 NOx-O 3 long CO 2 Total 10

11 Health impacts of surface air quality Consistent with US EPA and EU practice, considering effects of ozone and particulate matter (PM) All-sources Emissions Local Air Quality Modeling Changes in Ambient Concentration Concentration Response Functions Change in Health Endpoint Incidence All-sources Emissions minus Aviation Δ health costs =Δemissions Δambient concentration Δemission health incidence Δambient concentration cost health incidence 11

12 Aircraft surface air quality health impacts Very likely less than 0.6% of total health impacts due to poor local air quality in the U.S. Changes in annual particulate matter (mg/m 3 PM2.5) concentrations due to aircraft SOx, NOx, soot Aircraft contribution to PM concentration less than 0.1% on average Highway vehicle pollution: ~ 25,000 premature mortality incidences/year US Total? >25,000-70,000 mortality incidences/year Aviation pollution: ~ premature mortality incidences/year 22/year Average U.S. Airline passenger fatalities (Part 121) 45,000/year U.S. motor vehicle fatalities,

13 US aviation particulate matter health costs $/kg Primary PM SOx NO x = 30 kilotons/yr Primary SOx PM NO x Total $M/yr Secondary nitrates Secondary sulfates Primary PM Marginal Damages Emissions Health Costs APMT analysis for U.S. aviation health impacts, AEDT 2005 inventory estimate, FOA3 PM method, Greco et al. [2007] Mobile Source Intake Fraction method This graphical equation is a simplification of the more complicated analysis that we perform 13

14 Comparing aviation climate damage estimates to other environmental impacts: community noise Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) used to correlate noise levels with housing capital depreciation Adding additional noise metrics: sleep awakenings % highly annoyed location of schools 14

15 Revisiting increased engine certification stringency for NOx For an illustrative sample case; impacts of U.S. ops only 8% Policy 1 = 6.5% in 2012 Percent Change 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% Number of people impacted Health incidences AIR QUALITY LAQ NOISE Policy 2= 6.5% in 2016 Policy 3 = 18% in 2012 Policy 4 = 18% in 2016 Temperature change CLIMATE ~0.6% detriment BETTER WORSE -6% ~4% detriment -8% ~5.6% improvement 15

16 Revisiting increased engine certification stringency for NOx For an illustrative sample case; note that results are very sensitive to manufacturing cost and fuel penalty assumptions; impacts of U.S. ops only Policy 1 = 6.5% in 2012 Policy 2= 6.5% in 2016 Policy 3 = 18% in 2012 Policy 4 = 18% in US$ x NOISE AIR QUALITY LAQ CLIMATE CONSUMER SURPLUS PRODUCER SURPLUS NET IMPACT BETTER WORSE WORSE BETTER 16

17 Under most assumptions and scenarios climate damage dominates other environmental impacts 30 year scenario, 3.5% discounting, U.S. operations only These results are for one particular set of assumptions and scenarios: they are not general. However, for most assumptions and scenarios, climate impacts are larger than local air quality and noise impacts Air Quality 17

18 What s missing (that may be important)? Long-term climate feedbacks, threshold events Regionalized impacts Direct health impacts of noise Broader economic impacts of noise (e.g., through delayed airport expansion) Impacts on rental units Impact of cruise emissions on surface air quality Some localized effects very close to airport Air Quality 18

19 Summary FAA has made a commitment to use these tools to inform their decision-making for the ICAO/CAEP meeting in 2010 to help establish trades among noise, local air quality and climate impacts to better quantify and manage the impacts associated with US NextGen We are still developing and improving these methods they are not accepted for CAEP decision-making Our purpose is not to provide one answer or a single best estimate but to provide a framework that may be used to communicate potential outcomes and uncertainties using a variety of metrics, under a variety of assumptions and scenarios 19

20 Final words These tools will not make decision-making easier (they may well make it harder) However, our goal is to make decision-making better informed (not to make it easier) 20